IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 24597 of 2007(C)
1. DR.B.AMBIKA VARMA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF KERALA
3. THE REGISTRAR,KERALA AGRICULTURAL
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.JAYACHANDRAN
For Respondent :GOVERNMENT PLEADER
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :12/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NOs. 24597/07, 33123/07
& 10168 OF 2008
========================
Dated this the12th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The main case is WP(C) No.24597/07, and hence, I shall
deal with the claim in that writ petition first.
2. The petitioner states that being a Post Graduate
holding a Doctoral and Post Doctoral qualifications, she worked in
the CSIR as Post Doctoral fellow during the period from 1977 to
1980. Thereafter in March 1980, she was selected as Research
Associate at CSIR. Subsequently, by Ext.P1 order of 12/9/84, she
was appointed as a CSIR Research Associate in the Kerala
Agricultural University for a period of one year on consolidated
pay of Rs.1100/-. This was approved and ratified by the 2nd
respondent also.
3. It is her case that she was assigned teaching duties
and that taking into account the duties discharged by the
petitioner, on 1/9/86, the 2nd respondent decided to appoint the
petitioner in the University as a Junior Assistant Professor.
However, sanction for creation of the post was not accorded and
therefore by Ext.P2 order of 25/3/87, petitioner was appointed as
WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07
& 10168 OF 2008
:2 :
a Research Associate for a period of one year. The term of
appointment was extended periodically upto 24/3/91, and while
so, based on a complaint received from the Teachers’ Association,
in 1991, the 2nd respondent decided to terminate the appointment
of the petitioner.
4. Petitioner challenged the decision of the 2nd
respondent before the Supreme Court by filing a Writ Petition and
obtained an order of stay. Subsequently, that writ petition was
made over to this Court and was numbered as OP No.3746/91.
Meanwhile, the petitioner also filed Original Petition before this
Court as OP No.3764/91. These original petitions were heard and
disposed of by Ext.P4 judgment rendered on 3/12/96. The
relevant portion of which reads as under.
Considering all these aspects and following the
principles laid down in the various decisions of the
Supreme Court referred to above, I think it is a fit
case where the University should evolve a scheme
to absorb the petitioner in a suitable post.
Considering her qualification and experience, I am
sure that she will be an asset to the University. So,
there will be a direction to the respondents to
provide a suitable post to the petitioner in the
University befitting her qualification and
experience and also the service she has rendered
to the University for the last so many years.
Ext.P12 will stand stayed till the University takes a
decision to absorb the petitioner in service.
WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07
& 10168 OF 2008
:3 :
5. Accordingly, the Executive Committee in its 320th
meeting held on 7/3/98 considered the matter and resolved to
appoint the petitioner as Assistant Professor w.e.f. 3/12/96, the
date on which Ext.P4 judgment was rendered. On that basis,
Ext.P5 order dated 24/3/98 was issued appointing the petitioner
as Assistant Professor. Petitioner was not satisfied with the
appointment. According to the petitioner, since in Ext.P4
judgment, this Court directed that she should be absorbed in the
post befitting her qualification and experience, petitioner
contended that she ought to have been appointed atleast as an
Associate Professor and that too w.e.f. 1/1/86. It was on this
basis, she submitted Exts.P6 to P12 representations.
6. While so, the Establishment Committee of the
University by its decision taken on 16/12/04 decided to
recommend that the petitioner be absorbed counting her service
from 1984 onwards. A decision on the recommendation has not
been taken and it was at that stage the writ petition was filed
praying for directing the 3rd respondent to regularize the
petitioner as Assistant Professor from 27/9/84, induct her into
1986 UGC scheme w.e.f. 1/1/86 and grant her all further
WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07
& 10168 OF 2008
:4 :
monetary benefits.
7. In so far as WP(C) No.33123/07 is concerned, the
prayer is for extending her the benefit of the 1986 UGC Scheme.
During the pendency of this writ petition, by order dated
12/11/2007, she was given Assistant Professor Senior Scale.
Petitioner was not satisfied with this either, and therefore filed WP
(C) No.10168/08. During the pendency of this writ petition, she
was given senior scale w.e.f. 2001 and promotion as Associate
Professor w.e.f. 2001. Therefore, with the orders thus issued, the
grievance in these writ petitions stand redressed.
8. In so far as the first writ petition, viz., WP(C)
No.24597/07, as already noticed, the contention now raised by
the petitioner is based on Ext.P4 judgment, which directed that
the petitioner shall be absorbed consistent with her qualification
and experience. The University’s defence appears to be that in
terms of the 1986 UGC Scheme, the petitioner could have been
absorbed in the entry cadre viz., Assistant Professor, which it has
done. It is stated that further advancement in career can be only
in terms of the UGC scheme, and therefore, the petitioner cannot
seek direct absorption as Associate Professor.
WPC Nos. 24597/07, 33123/07
& 10168 OF 2008
:5 :
9. In my view, this claim of the petitioner will be
substantially redressed if the 2nd respondent takes a decision on
the recommendation of the Establishment Committee taken on
16/12/2004 for counting the petitioner’s services from 1984.
Nothing has been placed on record by the University to indicate
that a final decision in this matter has been taken. Therefore, as
atpresent, I am inclined to think that the petitioner’s grievance
can be redressed if the 2nd respondent takes a decision in the
above matter.
10. Therefore, I dispose of WP(C) No.24597/07 directing
the 2nd respondent to take a decision on the recommendation of
the Establishment Committee to absorb the petitioner counting
her service from 1984 onwards. Taking into account the
submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is due for retirement in November, 2009, I direct that a
decision shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, at any rate
within four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment.
Writ petitions are disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp